I think this is absolutely the way to go. MP3s from Universal will still be traded through Gnutella or on Usenet or any other way that can be effectively anonymous, legal or no. My.MP3.com is going in the right direction for the legal means to distribute music by signing a few labels that will allow them to distribute.
Throughout this Napster trial I've been hearing that widespread distribution of music over the net is the beginning of the end for the brick and mortar labels and records stores. Now that a legalized system has been developed, and if it is successful, I might start believing that.
I'd also expect companies like UMC do something similar, since they can't sue it away.
But I'm even less of a proponent of big game/media corps pushing their violent agenda on the most vulnerable segment of society -- our children.
The destruction of freedom sounds like a noble endeavour if the 'our children' phrase is invoked, but once you distill the argument down to its essence it becomes the same old crap. Essentially person A feels like everyone should give up their freedom so that person B will be protected from harm. Lets take away the ability of thousands of people to buy a game so that we protect society from the five people like you, who turn into deranged killers after playing an hour of Doom. I'm tired of people like you telling me what is best.
Think about this. If you wanted to train a generation to become killing machines, how would you go about it? Let me suggest that putting children in a killing simulator is about the best thing you could do to achieve that goal.
Actually, that doesn't seem to be working very well. Violence has been on TV and in the news for far longer than it has been in video games. On the other hand, keeping people broke (welfare) and keeping the drug market profitable (current US drug policy) seems to be working wonders. Take a few dozen LA gang members and put them up against some kids who run FPS LAN parties....
Code is cool. Really, here is some company that decides to give away some nearly useless device at Radio Shacks and a few programmers tear it apart to see how it works. The end result is the code above. You stick this stuff into a compiler and out comes something that can talk to the Cuecat. That is just fscking cool. Not to mention the fact that it is causing so much hand wringing by the folks at DC. That is even more amazing, that supposedly intelligent people (like Kaplan) could look at this page of what is to them gibberish and pronounce it evil. Get a grip folks, it is just code.
Now I'm going to thave to buy a CueCat source code shirt.
Really, I think these companies misunderstand the nature of the internet. Once the something gets out there really isn't any way to get it back. Cease and desist letters aren't going to do any good because they only work in the US. I have the code, you have the code, your friends all have the code.
Maybe a better stance would be "Hey, I'm glad you OSS people want a scanner that will run in Linux, we had no idea. Soon we will have a pile of delightful apps and hardware aimed at the Linux OS. Thanks for all your help."
That might be a little more well received.
The example given in the article does have some similarities. For some more blatant ripoffs check out GunBroker and E Bang. They look pretty much the same as a more famous auction site.
I've been buying hunting equipment from GunBroker for quite a while, I also use Ebay from time to time. About a month after a new feature of design element hits Ebay, GunBroker imitates it.
Why are the majority of posts I read here (I didn't read all 520+) centered around ways to fool the MPAA? Renaming the file, splitting it up into parts, emailing it line by line...
Is this not the equivalent of giving up and heading underground? We are dealing with an issue that is so much larger than a simple decryption algorithm than it is almost incomprehensible. The fact that 2600 was sued over DeCSS is almost incidental, they were sued for linking and were told by a US judge that it was illegal. Do we want to be in the position of splitting up all of the content that someone (or some company) finds objectionable? To borrow conceptually from the NRA: Today they'll take away our DeCSS, tomorrow they'll take something else. They'll do it so slowly that we'll never notice.
The real evil of this ruling is that it makes it possible for a company to prohibit you from disseminating information if they don't agree with it, never mind what is being done with that information. Can't we just focus on how to stop the seemingly endless parade of freedoms that are disappearing rather than the myraid of ways to make it hard for the MPAA to stop DeCSS?
Actually, it is distributed pretty damn near free by places like Free Bytes. Essentially you are paying them for the cost of their disks and a very small fee for burning it. I think I bought Slack, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and a disk full of RPM files for less than $20. While all of that software could have been downloaded for $0 I wanted to have the CDs to copy and give to my friends. Had I gone to Best Buy and paid $50 I also would have gotten quite a large pile of documentation.
It isn't going to be as pervasive as AOL disks because there isn't a multibillion dollar corporation(s) behind it.
Thats doubtful, check out the Unix history tree. Kernel hackers are not held back simply because there is something else out there that works. I also doubt that Linus would have been happy with any closed source OS, stable or no.
I wouldn't trust Consumer Reports to recommend a good garbage can, let alone something as complicated as a computer. They are always impressed by the most pointless things.
Re:feeding programmers?
on
Men of Zeal
·
· Score: 1
And you may well be stuck in that model for the rest of your life. Unfortunately for the current incarnation of the OSS community there are no overtly successful companies whose business is giving away their products, at least not in the sense that Microsoft or IBM would consider successful. Red Hat is the closest thing to that (as far as I know) and their earnings aren't exactly spectacular.
The business model you describe is a very basic one. A company develops a product that people want, puts it out on the market, and, in the absence of a better competitor, sells it for a profit. This model can be attributed to a very basic view of supply and demand. What open source software companies propose is directly opposed to that model. You are expected to give your product away for nothing and make money elsewhere (like support contracts) for the good of software in general. Big businesses aren't going to abandon the practices that have made them so wealthy in favor of that, it would be self destructive because it isn't yet proven that such a model works. People who have become successful working for businesses that have made their money in the traditional way aren't going to abandon it either.
It may be that commercial success, on the scale of MS or IBM, isn't what the free software movement has in its future. It is also equally possible that it could end up being a gold mine. Any company, or any person, who is in this for the gold mine alone should probably rethink their position. I think the article is trying to make that point. Since there is no denying the need to feed the family the community may miss out on the services of people such as yourself, for the time being anyway. I doubt the majority of open source programmers rely completely on free software for their income anyway, most of them intend to produce better products first, then worry about whether or not there is any money to be made.
My point, if I have one, is that if you think opening up the code makes for better software, and you want better software, then you will eventually come around. If you are looking for a way to make money at this by opening up some code but not making it 'free' then it would be best to sit this round out.
IE (Windows version) can zoom. It uses the wheel if you have a wheel mouse. Dunno how to do it without. I learned this a month or two ago (only use Windows at work) when a guy at work stopped me to ask why his browser looked funny.
and as far as I know is still being used without problem today.
Except that somebody installed Access 2000 on their machine and converted your database's front end. Did you make this thing to be multi user? If so, I pity your former employer. If not, not a bad choice.
As far as a turnkey system, PYTHEAS is probably the closest thing you'll find. It is in its infancy though, so you are not likely to be satisfied if you want a finished product.
From what I have seen there aren't a lot of amazing library systems anywhere, OS or proprietary.
Since I don't know where you looked for a system I might be completely off base but this seems like a project a group of CS grads would have picked up somewhere along the line. Check with some universities, somebody has to have replaced those ancient mainframe systems somewhere. If not there are a few very good OS databases (seems like more pop up every day). If you are interested in building a library system they would be an excellent place to begin.
Every time an internet or tech related issue gets taken to court (or Congress I guess) it seems like the people who hear the case just can't grasp what is being discussed. Anyone who has worked with end users much knows the deer in the headlights look. It is really unfortunate when issues as weighty as these get treated with the standard Internet is evil crap, just because the judge doesn't quite grasp the technology behind it. His analogies illustrate this fairly well, he keeps trying to relate these issues to things that he understands a little better but the relationships don't quite fit. Mr. Goldstein (I feel funny addressing someone from 2600 as Mr.) caught this rather quickly. I'm guessing that Judge Kaplan gets most of his news from his TV or the WSJ. He reads as though he has been fed a steady diet of FUD about how evil hackers can roam free in the web, cause untold havoc, and steal food from the mouths of giant corporations.
We should hold out hope though. This is going to have to get to the Supreme Court before it will catch an enlightened judge but it might have a chance there.
At least now I can say: "Damn this forking Interbase!", and people will not look at me stupid.
This sort of thing sounds a lot like the point I brought up in yesterday's AFS article. Many companies that previously released proprietary only code have been opening things up. This is good, but in many cases the licenses allow them to continue to exert a lot of influence over how things are used (how many IPLs are there now?) I also question the motives behind jumping into open source when a company jumps right back out because the short term prospect of Inprise recouping their investment wasn't too promising. For profit corporations are still tied to their shareholders and they aren't likely to be huge supporters of open source, there just isn't enough money in it right now.
Soon I will be free of my present employer (I maintain several different RDBMSs) and I would like to spend some time working for one of the open source database projects. Things like this piss me off because I would hate to be in the position of the people who have been doing Interbase development (or at least planning to do some).
Yeah, but if we give you one slot sooner or later you'll be asking for another. Then it'll be 'I need an ISA slot too, I have an old card I need to put in!". Where would it end? AGP? 4x AGP?
Slashdot Mirror
Throughout this Napster trial I've been hearing that widespread distribution of music over the net is the beginning of the end for the brick and mortar labels and records stores. Now that a legalized system has been developed, and if it is successful, I might start believing that.
I'd also expect companies like UMC do something similar, since they can't sue it away.
Thats the human error, the person who left the database open doesn't work for WU, they work for MS.
But I'm even less of a proponent of big game/media corps pushing their violent agenda on the most vulnerable segment of society -- our children.
The destruction of freedom sounds like a noble endeavour if the 'our children' phrase is invoked, but once you distill the argument down to its essence it becomes the same old crap. Essentially person A feels like everyone should give up their freedom so that person B will be protected from harm. Lets take away the ability of thousands of people to buy a game so that we protect society from the five people like you, who turn into deranged killers after playing an hour of Doom.
I'm tired of people like you telling me what is best.
Think about this. If you wanted to train a generation to become killing machines, how would you go about it? Let me suggest that putting children in a killing simulator is about the best thing you could do to achieve that goal.
Actually, that doesn't seem to be working very well. Violence has been on TV and in the news for far longer than it has been in video games. On the other hand, keeping people broke (welfare) and keeping the drug market profitable (current US drug policy) seems to be working wonders. Take a few dozen LA gang members and put them up against some kids who run FPS LAN parties....
Really, I think these companies misunderstand the nature of the internet. Once the something gets out there really isn't any way to get it back. Cease and desist letters aren't going to do any good because they only work in the US. I have the code, you have the code, your friends all have the code.
Maybe a better stance would be "Hey, I'm glad you OSS people want a scanner that will run in Linux, we had no idea. Soon we will have a pile of delightful apps and hardware aimed at the Linux OS. Thanks for all your help."
That might be a little more well received.
I've been buying hunting equipment from GunBroker for quite a while, I also use Ebay from time to time. About a month after a new feature of design element hits Ebay, GunBroker imitates it.
Is this not the equivalent of giving up and heading underground? We are dealing with an issue that is so much larger than a simple decryption algorithm than it is almost incomprehensible. The fact that 2600 was sued over DeCSS is almost incidental, they were sued for linking and were told by a US judge that it was illegal. Do we want to be in the position of splitting up all of the content that someone (or some company) finds objectionable? To borrow conceptually from the NRA: Today they'll take away our DeCSS, tomorrow they'll take something else. They'll do it so slowly that we'll never notice.
The real evil of this ruling is that it makes it possible for a company to prohibit you from disseminating information if they don't agree with it, never mind what is being done with that information. Can't we just focus on how to stop the seemingly endless parade of freedoms that are disappearing rather than the myraid of ways to make it hard for the MPAA to stop DeCSS?
Mod this one up.
It isn't going to be as pervasive as AOL disks because there isn't a multibillion dollar corporation(s) behind it.
I wouldn't trust Consumer Reports to recommend a good garbage can, let alone something as complicated as a computer. They are always impressed by the most pointless things.
The business model you describe is a very basic one. A company develops a product that people want, puts it out on the market, and, in the absence of a better competitor, sells it for a profit. This model can be attributed to a very basic view of supply and demand. What open source software companies propose is directly opposed to that model. You are expected to give your product away for nothing and make money elsewhere (like support contracts) for the good of software in general. Big businesses aren't going to abandon the practices that have made them so wealthy in favor of that, it would be self destructive because it isn't yet proven that such a model works. People who have become successful working for businesses that have made their money in the traditional way aren't going to abandon it either.
It may be that commercial success, on the scale of MS or IBM, isn't what the free software movement has in its future. It is also equally possible that it could end up being a gold mine. Any company, or any person, who is in this for the gold mine alone should probably rethink their position. I think the article is trying to make that point. Since there is no denying the need to feed the family the community may miss out on the services of people such as yourself, for the time being anyway. I doubt the majority of open source programmers rely completely on free software for their income anyway, most of them intend to produce better products first, then worry about whether or not there is any money to be made.
My point, if I have one, is that if you think opening up the code makes for better software, and you want better software, then you will eventually come around. If you are looking for a way to make money at this by opening up some code but not making it 'free' then it would be best to sit this round out.
You already do.
You haven't used Office 2000 on Windows ME yet have you?
IE (Windows version) can zoom. It uses the wheel if you have a wheel mouse. Dunno how to do it without. I learned this a month or two ago (only use Windows at work) when a guy at work stopped me to ask why his browser looked funny.
Except that somebody installed Access 2000 on their machine and converted your database's front end.
Did you make this thing to be multi user? If so, I pity your former employer. If not, not a bad choice.
From what I have seen there aren't a lot of amazing library systems anywhere, OS or proprietary.
Since I don't know where you looked for a system I might be completely off base but this seems like a project a group of CS grads would have picked up somewhere along the line. Check with some universities, somebody has to have replaced those ancient mainframe systems somewhere. If not there are a few very good OS databases (seems like more pop up every day). If you are interested in building a library system they would be an excellent place to begin.
It is really unfortunate when issues as weighty as these get treated with the standard Internet is evil crap, just because the judge doesn't quite grasp the technology behind it. His analogies illustrate this fairly well, he keeps trying to relate these issues to things that he understands a little better but the relationships don't quite fit. Mr. Goldstein (I feel funny addressing someone from 2600 as Mr.) caught this rather quickly. I'm guessing that Judge Kaplan gets most of his news from his TV or the WSJ. He reads as though he has been fed a steady diet of FUD about how evil hackers can roam free in the web, cause untold havoc, and steal food from the mouths of giant corporations.
We should hold out hope though. This is going to have to get to the Supreme Court before it will catch an enlightened judge but it might have a chance there.
This sort of thing sounds a lot like the point I brought up in yesterday's AFS article. Many companies that previously released proprietary only code have been opening things up. This is good, but in many cases the licenses allow them to continue to exert a lot of influence over how things are used (how many IPLs are there now?) I also question the motives behind jumping into open source when a company jumps right back out because the short term prospect of Inprise recouping their investment wasn't too promising. For profit corporations are still tied to their shareholders and they aren't likely to be huge supporters of open source, there just isn't enough money in it right now.
Soon I will be free of my present employer (I maintain several different RDBMSs) and I would like to spend some time working for one of the open source database projects. Things like this piss me off because I would hate to be in the position of the people who have been doing Interbase development (or at least planning to do some).
Yeah, but if we give you one slot sooner or later you'll be asking for another. Then it'll be 'I need an ISA slot too, I have an old card I need to put in!". Where would it end? AGP? 4x AGP?